Posted
by
samzenpuson Sunday March 17, 2013 @03:07PM
from the ocean's-down-under dept.

iComp writes "A sophisticated scheme to use a casino's own security systems against it has netted scammers $33 million in a high-stakes poker game after they were able to gain a crucial advantage by seeing the opposition's cards. The team used a high-rolling accomplice from overseas who was known to spend large amounts while gambling at Australia's biggest casino, the Crown in Melbourne, according to the Herald Sun. He and his family checked into the Crown and were accommodated in one of its $30,000-a-night villas. The player then joined a private high-stakes poker game in a private suite. At the same time, an unnamed person got access to the casino's CCTV systems in the poker room and fed the information he gleaned back to the player via a wireless link. Over the course of eight hands the team fleeced the opposition to the tune of $33 million."

Actually, it could be correct, but there isn't enough information to tell. The Register article claims that the game was poker, but that isn't supported by the original Herald Sun article, which just says "hands of cards." Note how completely devoid of details the Herald Sun article is - they won't say much about the details, the technique, or even what game was being played. This might be because it would identify the players involved.

" got access to the casino's CCTV systems in the poker room and fed the information he gleaned back to the player via a wireless link"
Who's to say the casinos don't do this themselves on a daily basis? The fact that this was possible at all makes me question the frequency of such an 'exploit', and not only that, the fact that the opposing players cards were 'readable by security camera' is something that should worry pretty much everyone

I dunno, I could never win any money at cards in any casino in GTA San Andreas. Pretty sure the PS2 was cheating and looking at my cards. Jokes on it though: I was using cheat codes to get $25,000 dollars any time I wanted. I was like Neo in the Matrix, except instead of kung fu it was bullets and instead of a global AI computer it was a Sony.

I guess they could reset the table and change the rules they are playing under (updating all the rules descriptions and informing the players) but that's no different than them announcing that the table will now be playing Pai Gow.

Exactly. Story about CCTV is bullshit, they would need HD cameras pointed a players back at specific angle to even make the cards out.This leads me to believe Casino security got compromised to the point of someone planting cameras in the room beforehand, maybe even Casino employees being on the scam.

In a good setup, you do both. Best setup is cheap cameras everywhere, as many as you can get, to cover every spot imaginable (just regular analog cameras with 1/4'' CCD or even CMOS recording at 320x240). Then some better cameras for more important spots (1/3'' CCD recording at 720x576), and finally some good IP Cameras recording at least at 720p in a few important spots, mostly for face recog. With this, you've got everything covered. You then use PTZ domes as backup and for real-time surveillance. When th

I take it you've never used an actual professional-grade PTZ (pan/tilt/zoom) security camera. There are plenty of models that would allow you to read the turned-up corner on a card from 50+ meters away, and really expensive ones that could double that.

I must assume that at least some of the people around the table will have faster and more extreme ways to recover their cash and/or pride than regular law enforcement. Plus the dude was dumb enough to check in with his family?

Hope they live long enough to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. Mind you, one could argue that taking 33 mil from people who are clearly prepared to gamble it away is less immoral than mugging a tramp...

This may come as a surprise, but plenty of people (even those in lower income brackets) prefer to not have the government set wages and redistribute income to a great extent... even if it means that some other fellow might be making way more than themselves.

This may come as a surprise, but plenty of people (even those in lower income brackets) prefer to not have the government set wages and redistribute income to a great extent... even if it means that some other fellow might be making way more than themselves.

I am sure that you are right, but I suspect that the same people who would not support redistribution only do so because they don't understand how large numbers of wealthy benefit from the way thet they and other wealthy people have stacked the decks in their favor.

The bank bailout, for example, effected a massive redistribution of wealth towards wealthy bankers. It's ongoing, with large banks benefitting from very low cost loans from the Fed, which they use to buy government bonds, which return a higher interest rate.

I am sure that you are right, but I suspect that the same people who would not support redistribution only do so because they don't understand how large numbers of wealthy benefit from the way thet they and other wealthy people have stacked the decks in their favor.

..and they did that through the government.

So your solution is for even more government involvement? Yeah... you are the real problem.

And your solution is what? Less government. Yeah, that's working well in Somalia and other failed states.

Actually, it's crazy that we are even talking about redistribution. We should be talking about leveling the playing field -- taking away the redistribution that is already going on -- and benefitting the already wealthy.

"The government" is just another name for "the democratic will of the people" whatever libertarians may like to believe. Without government, the wealthy would be in total command of society.

It's deluded people like you who are the problem. The government/law that stops me and my friends from stealing your car, house and so on is the same one that prevents you from murdering slaves in factories because society has agreed how we would like things to be organised.

I am in the class you speak of and I firmly believe in non redistribution. That includes up and it also includes down. as long as those in power have the power to distribute downwards they will also be able to bend those exact same rules to distribute upwards at a faster pace. Taxing the rich actually always end up texting the middle class instead of the rich. The rich just find ways of hiding their income in non taxable returns wow the middle class gets stung by the taxes as inflation changes the true e

Security cameras in casinos are able to resolve the cards that poker players hold in their hands? That sounds like an incredibly obvious attack vector - I'm surprised this hasn't happened previously. (Of course, casino management isn't exactly known for transparency, so probably it has.)

I haven't read the article so I'm not sure of the details, but you generally don't need to be able to read all the cards. Lots of cards are distinguishable from each other. An 8 for instance looks nothing like an Ace. A face card can easily be distinguished from a regular card. You could tell if the card was black or red even if you couldn't see the suite.

With Texas holdem and other community card games, it's easier to see the important details. Does he have a pair? Does he have a flush? A straight? An Ace or a face card? You could at least have some confidence of what they don't have.

In gambling the game is always rigged. The house is always going to win. In poker what you are gambling is your strategies and skill are better than the opponents.

Strategy [nytimes.com], though is frowned upon in most cases. This, however, goes a bit beyond typical strategy. It does, to me, justify the assertion that poker is not gambling. I think it is crap, but if you can rig the game so you win, by whatever means, then it no longer gambling.

The house is always going to win. In poker what you are gambling is your strategies and skill are better than the opponents.
Strategy [nytimes.com], though is frowned upon in most cases

What is frowned upon? That your strategy is better than the opponents? Not so, it is the only way there is poker. You can't, without cheating, get an edge on your opponent in poker in any other way than skill. Poker isn't, and never was, gambling. It is purely a game of skill.

Assuming the casino had a basic firewall for outside of the hotel access, I am thinking the accomplice may have been in a room in the hotel.
If that were the case... How could they not have a separate firewall to protect the CCTV feeds? It would seem to me the CCTV should have stand-alone servers and a stand-alone firewall.
That being said, I would like to meet the intruder. I have a business proposition for him:-)

I am surprised that no one has commented on the fact that this is another case of a backdoor that was intended for the use of whitehats being commandeered by blackhats. When you build backdoors into systems you weaken security.

Another, really amazing story along those lines is the cell-phone wire-tapping of greece [ieee.org] during the months before the last olympics games in athens. The system was designed with a wire-tapping backdoor, greece didn't even purchase that feature when they bought the switches, but the blackhats were able to turn it on and listen in to the phone calls of the mayor of athens and the prime minister of greece.

Are you really honestly claiming that, based on this one rare and isolated incident, that casinos all do good to improve their overall security by getting rid of their cameras? I suggest you think about what you're saying again.

This is like those morons who think you shouldn't wear seatbelts because in 1 in 10,000 accidents they hurt you instead of help save you.

"Are you really honestly claiming that, based on this one rare and isolated incident, that casinos all do good to improve their overall security by getting rid of their cameras?"

No, but the "security tools" they apply should also be considered as sources of risk in the overall risk management equation. Too often security products get a pass because, well, they're security products.

The witty worm is another favorite example of this position of privilege turned against you.

Because the casino's security network was used to perpetrate the cheat, the casino has liability. Also, when cheated players howl, houses have to make up the cheat-losses to proof that they were not partners in the scam. This is one of the reasons casinos pay top-drawer card-sharpers to scan and play, especially where unnatural luck appears, especially against the house, but also for, for public relations.

High-stakes players are of high value to casinos, even in rent-a-table poker games, because the house's collects a percentage of the stakes, just as auctions do of the knock-down (sale) price.

So, who lost more? The suckers around the table lost $33M. The casino lost the reputation that convinces people to drop $33M on their poker tables *every single day*. In the long run, I bet this is far more than a $33M loss for the casino: they've just lost their fishing seat next to a billion-dollar-a-year cash river from high rollers.

I don't think they lost much. They caught those involved (before the high roller even left the building) and are "in a good position to recover a significant portion of the amount involved in the scam."
Last year they reported profits of $181m, so I don't think they are making $33m from anyone 'every single day'.

Well arguably the game could be shorter/have few hands if one of the players wielded a significant advantages, thus causing the casino to "lose" money. On the other hand, missing out on possible income isn't exactly stealing.

Casinos operate within things called laws. Yes, they have a mathematical edge in the long run, but this is a known factor (and in the UK at least, the long term odds have to be published). What these people did is illegal, meaning it breaks those laws (specifically, the ones about using a "device" to assist you - eg you can count cards if you want, that's perfectly OK, but you can't use a smartphone app to do it).
Nobody is forced to go to casinos, and if anybody is seriously surprised that the odds favour the house then they probably shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a table on the grounds that they don't have sufficient mental faculties to understand what they're doing.

It's typically legal to count cards, however the house isn't legally required to let you do so. And that's even if you aren't using mechanical assistance. Typically if they catch you doing it, the pit boss will come over and switch things up, and if that doesn't work they'll eject you from the casino or ask that you not play any more blackjack.

Which is understandable, blackjack only gives the house about a.5% edge over the player with normal play, and counting cards can easily change the house into operating at a loss.

But, the fact that things are stacked in the house's favor and that the house keeps it that way is dubious ethically speaking. Most players are not in any position to understand that to any appreciable degree.

I'll never understand that. How are you supposed to play, if not by counting cards on your mind to decide what's your best bet? Just speak nonsense at random times just to see if you win? And how can they know you're counting cards? It's insane.

The difference is that if you're counting cards, you're varying your bets so that you're betting more when you're more likely to get a good hand and less when you're less likely to.

And yeah, they've got a pretty good idea as to who is and isn't counting cards. The industry puts a ton of money into figuring that out as they can easily lose tons of money to card counters if they don't. Usually, they're looking at things like bet history, rate at which the player is playing and such, often times the pit boss will go over and chat you up if they think you're card counting, to try and distract you a bit.

The only part of the casino where they ever permit people to be profitable without being lucky, is the slots. The slots will have the pay schedule on the front of the machine, and sometimes you find some machines where they're set to pay out more than they take in. They'll usually be up front near the door to try and entice suckers to come and gamble. And they're usually video poker where if you play perfectly, you can expect a small profit over time.

Not true, the fact of the matter is that card counting depends upon there being relatively large number of cards to function correctly. If you were trying to count against a single deck, you wouldn't see enough hands in order to have any meaningful impact on the cards.

Not true, the fact of the matter is that card counting depends upon there being relatively large number of cards to function correctly. If you were trying to count against a single deck, you wouldn't see enough hands in order to have any meaningful impact on the cards.

That's ridiculous. The reason they use multi-deck shoes is to increase the difficulty of counting cards. If they were only dealing with 52, it would be relatively easy for a normal person to count cards according to a simple system and watch as the odds turned for or against them and increase or reduce their bets or change the level at which they stay. Also, if they use 12-deck shoes, it's impossible for a player to determine when the casino isn't playing with full decks.

Not true, the fact of the matter is that card counting depends upon there being relatively large number of cards to function correctly. If you were trying to count against a single deck, you wouldn't see enough hands in order to have any meaningful impact on the cards.

That's ridiculous. The reason they use multi-deck shoes is to increase the difficulty of counting cards. If they were only dealing with 52, it would be relatively easy for a normal person to count cards according to a simple system and watch as the odds turned for or against them and increase or reduce their bets or change the level at which they stay. Also, if they use 12-deck shoes, it's impossible for a player to determine when the casino isn't playing with full decks.

It doesn't increase the difficulty of counting cards at all. But, it does decrease the variance. Card counting involves placing higher bets when there are a significantly higher than average number of 10's, face cards and aces in the deck than 2-6's. With a small number of decks, this situation occurs much more frequently than with a larger number of decks. Player's can't easily determine whether or not they are playing with a full deck even when there is only one deck because they do not deal all the way down to the last card, and they also burn a card at the beginning.
A typical card counting scheme involves each card having a value of either -1, 0 or +1. For example, card 2-6 might be +1, and 10's, face cards and Aces would be -1. You just keep track of a running total of the count. But usually, that number is pretty close to zero because the cards tend to cancel each other out. I think the highest count I ever saw was like +15. You can teach yourself to count cards pretty easily. If you are good at it, with say a $15 hand minimum bet you can have a positive expected value. The problem is it will usually be something like $250 plus or minus $2000 or something. So, in the end, you need to have a lot of capital in order to have a hope of beating the variance. Meanwhile, you are likely to be detected and banned.

There used to be guide books on how to win at the video games as well as the slot machines (by now, software controlled ones and not purely mechanical ones). By state law the slot machines are required to return a fixed percentage of the money put in by players. The systems actually maintain logs to prove that this is happening. So the strategy was to always "lose" at the low payouts in the beginning, which would push up the ratio of earnings to payouts. This would force the software to make a high payout i

This is plain wrong. On standard video slot machines every single game has a random result, there is no 'memory' of past games in order to reach a certain payout percentage. There are jurisdictions and game types who do/did this (eg UK AWP, Germany street market) but in typical (Las Vegas style) casinos the hold is defind by the math of the game and is only true for large numbers of games played.
A casino game can be way over or under the theoretical payout percentage even after many games played, because it is - (pseudo) random. This is tested and certified by global gaming labs like GLI and others.

The key word in your post is "standard". Agree the sequence is not stored in memory, however all psuedo-random generators will repeat the same sequence if given the same seed, I believe ( but cannot prove ) that this was a problem here in Oz about 20yrs ago with one particular type of machine (ie: it was a software bug). Yes, the generator will create random numbers but the utility of them lies in the fact that you can program the statistical distribution of those numbers to be whatever you want it to be. This makes it possible for the law to force Crown to take no more that 15% from the punters via poker machines. The equation you select for the generator can also cause problems, if not done carefully the generator can end up with a very short cycle length that a human can work out by observation.

A casino game can be way over or under the theoretical payout percentage

Yes, with one machine the payout can vary wildly from day to day but with a large casino such as crown (2500 machines, 24hrs a day) the daily variance from 15% will be pretty close to zero.

The only part of the casino where they ever permit people to be profitable without being lucky, is the slots. The slots will have the pay schedule on the front of the machine, and sometimes you find some machines where they're set to pay out more than they take in. They'll usually be up front near the door to try and entice suckers to come and gamble. And they're usually video poker where if you play perfectly, you can expect a small profit over time.

(disclaimer: I work in the gaming industry)
That might be true in unregulated or poorly regulated gaming markets. Some Indian gaming casinos have no state oversight.
However, in the larger markets, such as here in Las Vegas it is completely a myth that casinos will put the "looser" machines near the door, end of the aisles, etc.
They are disallowed from changing the odds of it "hitting" and they will NEVER allow a machine on the floor that pays out more than it takes in. And they don't need to...people come in play them regardless if someone near the door hits.
Also, slots are about the worst in terms of probability.

And they're usually video poker where if you play perfectly, you can expect a small profit over time.

Um...no. But the Casino can expect to make a large profit over time.
There isn't really anything like "play perfectly" but you might "get lucky" once in a while and enjoy some small, near term profit. Over the long term, you'll still lose overall.
If it didn't work that way, casinos wouldn't operate them.

Not quite, you can get payout of 100.7% [wizardofodds.com] if you pick the right machine and strategy. Add on comps and free drinks, and you can end up well ahead. Not my idea of a good time, but some people love that.

Uh, nope.
Counting cards can be easily dealt with if you have a mixing machine that returns spent cards and mixes the deck, which there are.
The whole thing is based on you counting cards that got played, and as such,estimating what's left in the deck and playing accordingly.
If the deck contains almost everything all the time, this strategy dies.

How can they tell? Because you're winning - and also because of your betting patterns. The original MIT Bringing Down The House guys got rumbled fairly quickly because of their betting patterns, so they switched to using a low-stakes gambler to do the counting who would continue to lose when the odds were in his/her favour, and they would discretely signal an accomplice to come in and bet big when this happened.

These days casinos combat it by using multiple decks of cards in a shoe which are changed before they've run through enough of them to give a good statistical idea of the remaining contents.

You're abolutely right. But they also have the right to refuse service. It's their house.

My dad quit blackjack in Vegas in the 90's over odds changes. I kinda did the same when they increased the shoe. The difference was expectation, I just wanted free drinks while I did the CES thing. Though we'll still play occasionanally at the Peppermill in Reno to see who loses first.

But, the fact that things are stacked in the house's favor and that the house keeps it that way is dubious ethically speaking.

I disagree with this. The casino has to pay for space, pay for equipment, pay for materials, pay for utilities (lighting/heating/cooling/water/sewer/garbage), pay for staff, provide profit to investors, etc. If the games were perfectly 50/50, it is an absolute certainty that the house would lose money. In that situation, it would be the players taking advantage of the house.

Secondly, name a business that isn't some kind of investor scam, where investors are absolutely certain to lose money (and yes, there are stupid ideas that get funded, but that's different from a scam because still, people (unwisely) expect that a profit can be made). A casino that is absolutely guaranteed to lose money, obviously would give a lousy return on investment, and would never be built because there would be no investors.

[re house edge:] Most players are not in any position to understand that to any appreciable degree.

I disagree with this too. The fact that the house has an edge is so widely understood, it has made it into colloquial phrases such as "you can't beat the house" or "the house always wins."

Of course, there are other ways to run a casino and I could imagine one with 50/50 games, but you're parking spot would probably cost $100/hr, a coke would cost $10, etc. etc. And who knows, people might flock to that. But having a house edge on games is really similar to a restaurant charging $1.50 for a cup of coffee that costs $0.10 in materials (coffee grounds) to make -- because you aren't just paying for the coffee in a restaurant: you're paying for a place to drink it in, someone to make it, someone to serve it, someone to wash the cup, someone to wipe down the table, the table, the cup, the dishwasher, etc. etc..

But, the fact that things are stacked in the house's favor and that the house keeps it that way is dubious ethically speaking. Most players are not in any position to understand that to any appreciable degree.

Why is it dubious ethically? I think most gamblers know that. The stupid ones just think those odds somehow aren't going to apply to them.

Most arcade centers and amusement parks have even worse payout ratios;). If you're losing money in a casino and not having lots of fun doing so you should be doing something else that you find fun.

If you're there to make money and aren't making money, you're crap and should find a better job. Or practice with fake money till you're good enough.

It generally takes a cut of every pot (though apparently in serious high-dollar stuff they just rent the table and dealer's services out on an hourly basis). It's entirely possible for everyone at the table to lose money.

Ok, but you had better not have any possessions or anything other than bare subsistence yourself. If I find out you have incredible luxuries like cars or computers when people are starving, I shall judge you to be immoral.

Pure communism has been shown impossible? I agree there are some considerable theoretical pitfalls, but that's an extremely bold claim considering that it's never even been *attempted* on a scale beyond monasteries and private households, where it is actually very common and works pretty well. Sure some nations have claimed to be communistic, but if you actually look at the details that was mainly a PR snow job to facilitate a state of "We own everything, and will give you what you need. Trust us."

Ah yes. And clearly in the 1800s the fact that no-one except the occasional "mad scientist" type had ever attempted to fly was a strong clue that flight was impossible. And spaceflight in the 1900s was also clearly impossible. Likewise computers, democracy, and every other technology ever developed by humanity - clearly impossible, Right up until it wasn't.

Never attempted is a clue about nothing except a lack of motivation and/or imagination. The case for communism is actually considerably better consid

Oh, can you name even one example? I can't think of any offhand. Command economies have been attempted many times, but that's a concept orthogonal to communism. My quick "sniff test" for an honest attempt at communism? Look in on the people who pushed to establish the "communist" policies a few years later and see how their economic position compares to the masses. Are they considerably better off than most? Then they weren't pushing for communism, they were pushing for control of the economy for their

Lots of tribal groups have been quite socialist without a central power or any form of government beyond having some people who were well respected and listened to. Other examples are groups like the kibbutz.

Hmm, and yet all those people moved directly into the big house at the top of the hill when they gained power. Methinks their claims of a communist revolution had more to do with gathering popular support than actually wanting to spread the wealth.

And yes, certainly power corrupts. If you want to attack communism rather than just command economies then give me an example where things weren't controlled by a centralized authority (probably far less efficient, but not everything is about efficiency), or whe